dismissed L-1A Case: Software Solutions

MATTER OF S-E-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DA TE: AUG. 20, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR NON IMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software solutions provider, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a technical manager 
under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA classification 
allows a business to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to temporarily work 
in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, 
or that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad by its wholly-owned subsidiary in a managerial capacity, and that it would employ the 
Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial capacity. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has been employed in a managerial capacity. It 
does not assert that the Beneficiary was employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, our analysis 
will address whether the Beneficiary's position abroad was in a managerial capacity. 
Matter of S-E-S-, Inc. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial capacity. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the job duties, we examine the 
company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence 
of other employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the 
business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and 
role in a business. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. If staffing 
levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial capacity, we 
take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of 
development of the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
A. Duties 
Based on the statutory definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary performed certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). The Petitioner must also prove that the Beneficiary 
was primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside 
the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner asserts that it and its foreign subsidiary,.__ ____________ __., provide 
enterprise applications solutions ranging from implementation, business, consulting support, 
maintenance, and managed operations, and that they have developed solutions for numerous 
PeopleSoft applications. In a letter supporting the initial petition, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary had been =royed in a managerial capacity by its wholly-owned subsidiary,! I 
I _ in India since January 30, 2014. 1 The Petitioner indicated that the 
1 An offer letter dated January 17, 2014, in the record indicates t.hat the Beneficiary will r empl,yed with I I I las a senior consultant starting on February 20, 2014. It is not clear if changed its name to c=J 
after the offer letter was issued, or if the Beneficiary started working earlier than stated in the 
~le-tt_e_r._A_n-on_i_m_m_i-gr_a_n_t v--i~sa application submitted by the Beneficiary in 2014 shows that he was employed by I lat 
that time. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
2 
Matter of S-E-S-, Inc. 
Beneficiary's current position was technical manager and that he allocated his time in the position as 
follows: 
• Review customer's Statements of Work, Project Plans, Project Deliveries, set delivery 
priorities, and make schedule adjustments to meet timely delivery goals- 25%; 
• Oversee daily activities of delivery team based out of multiple time zones/locations and 
provide direction, guidance and mentoring as needed- 15%; 
• Serve as primary contact for customer inquiries, concerns and escalations- 15%; 
• Participate in Business Meetings and Solutions Presentations with Customers- 15%; 
• Customer and Management Reporting- 15%; 
• Evaluate performance of team members and determine training needs to ensure team maintains 
high level of competence and operational excellence - 10%; and 
• Develop process improvements to achieve cost effectiveness and time saving- 5%. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the duties indicated that he was primarily 
involved with performing tasks necessary to provide a service or product. The Director noted that the 
Beneficiary's paystubs indicated that he was employed as a senior consultant from May 2016 to March 
201 7, and that he was employed as a lead consultant from April 201 7 to May 201 7. 2 He requested 
additional evidence regarding the Beneficiary's duties abroad. 
In response, the director of~-------------~ provided a letter stating that the 
Beneficiary's initial designation was senior consultant, and he was later promoted to lead consultant 
(technical manager). 3 He stated that "[b ]oth of these positions are managerial in nature, requiring [the 
Beneficiary] to be involved in the hiring, motivation, retention, goal setting, evaluating, addressing 
career paths, and training the needs of his team members." He restated the job duties and percentages 
listed above,4 and clarified the Beneficiary's duties as follows: 
[The Beneficiary's] position requires a combination of managerial and technical skills 
and performs tasks related to company systems, including troubleshooting technical 
issues. The position oversees the development and implementation of all systems 
2 This petition was filed on December 7, 2018. According to his ratings in the file, he served as a senior consultant in 2015 
and 2016, and as a lead consultant (technical manager) in 2017 and 2018. His payslips show that he was employed as a 
lead consultant from April 2017 through the date of filing the petition. 
3 It appears that the Petitioner uses these titles interchangeably for the same position. 
4 These duties do not appear to include his duties as a senior consultant. In its supporting letter with the petition, the 
Petitioner stated that the duties of senior consultant include contributing to projects; gathering requirements, designing, 
developing, deploying and supporting small to medium complex work; working independently at Petitioner or at customer 
location; and defining and managing schedule, deliverables, and customer expectations. The description did not include a 
specific description of the Beneficiary's managerial duties as a senior consultant, and the record does not include an 
organizational chart reflecting the Beneficiary's position in the company as a senior consultant. In its RFE response, the 
Petitioner stated that the position of senior consultant is a managerial position which acts as a contact person between the 
Petitioner and its clients. The Petitioner emphasized the managerial aspect of the position in response to the RFE, while 
its original description was not managerial in nature. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort 
to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998). Because the Petitioner's primary description of the Beneficiary's job duties relate to his job as lead 
consultant (technical manager), we will focus our discussion on the managerial aspects of that job. 
3 
Matter of S-E-S-, Inc. 
through all steps of the process, and ensures that all members of the team are folly 
trained and able to perform their job. The position is the point person for technical 
issues that arise within the team, and is responsible for making key decisions for those 
issues related to the company after considering everything from cost to quality of 
hardware or software. Furthermore, the position provides guidance for all members of 
the team when it comes to designing, implementing and updating software and 
constantly evaluates company platforms and networks and search for ways to improve 
them. The position is responsible for addressing faults within any company system, 
and ensuring those faults are corrected. The technical manager makes sure that all 
procedures are documented for reference and that all of the members of the IT team are 
trained to handle any situation. The position is the communication source between 
clients and upper management of the company, and performs management tasks for the 
team. These duties include conducting employee reviews, handling employee 
complaints, and dividing the workload among members of the team. 
In his decision, the Director stated that many of the Beneficiary's job duties are not consistent with 
those typically performed by someone in a managerial or executive position, including serving as 
primary contact for customer inquiries, concerns and escalations; participating in business meetings 
and solutions presentations with customers; customer and management reporting; and reviewing 
customer's statements of work, project plans, and project deliveries, setting delivery priorities, and 
making schedule adjustments to meet timely delivery goals. He stated that the duties indicated that 
the Beneficiary was primarily involved with performing tasks necessary to provide a service or 
product. 
On appeal, a member of the human resources department of ~------------~ provided a letter farther detailing the Beneficiary's duties: 
• Review customer's Statements of Work, Project Plans, Project Deliveries, set delivery 
priorities, and make schedule adjustments to meet timely delivery goals (25%). 
o Preparation of the templates to capture the functional design documents, technical 
documents and migration documents. 
o Provide a necessary support to customers in preparing the requirements and 
deployments. 
o Gather Statement of Work from Customers on Informatica, Oracle Warehouse Builder, 
Oracle, Oracle Analytical Cloud etc, and review them. 
o Prepare detailed Project Plan defining roles, responsibilities, scope, cost and staffing 
plan. Discuss the key components with key stakeholders. 
o Keep track of deliverables, Monitor, review, and set delivery priorities, milestones, and 
schooled plan. 
o Establish strict change control, detail the deliverables, and adjust plan and resource 
count to achieve timely delivery goals. 
o Provide in-depth and board functional knowledge to business whenever its necessary. 
• Oversee daily activities of delivery team based out of multiple time zones/locations and 
provide direction, guidance and mentoring as needed (15%). 
4 
Matter of S-E-S-, Inc. 
o Schedule consistent meetings to oversee everyday activities for onsite and offshore to 
bring both together on a regular rhythm. 
o Improve the agile capabilities of team by building business knowledge-oriented teams 
at distributed locations. 
o Mentor the team regularly and help the teams grow their technical and functional skills. 
o Develop training strategy for Offshore and Onsite team which includes customer needs 
and future upgradations. 
o Preparation of end user questionnaires and test strategies. 
• Serve as primary contact for customer inquiries, concerns and escalations (15%). 
o Be the primary or key resource for the customers for their all queries, inquires, concerns 
and escalations. 
o Be the first person to receive any concerns or escalations. 
o Be available at customers time zones for any priority escalations and concerns. 
o Guide the team and take required decisions to resolve customer concerns/escalations. 
o Provide functional expertise on concerns/escalations as a first step of solution. 
• Participate in Business Meetings and Solutions Presentations with Customers (15%). 
o Meet the customer personally for solution presentation, new updates in software, new 
functionalities etc. 
o Involve in all Business meetings to bridge the technical and functional gap between 
teams and Customers. 
o Present updates on the work progress or completion every time to time to customers. 
o Present Solutions to Customers in case of any issues faced in the project. 
• Customer and Management Reporting (15%). 
• Evaluate performance of team members and determine training needs to ensure team maintains 
high level of competence and operational excellence (10% ). 
o Continuously mentor each team member and help them improve their competencies. 
o Set goals for each team member to improve their technical skills and soft skills. 
o Involve in Quarterly and Annual appraisal meetings with all team members and 
evaluate their ratings accordingly. 
o Make sure that each team member maintains high level competency and operational 
excellence. 
o Keep team updated with new software in market demand, and change in customer 
interests. 
• Develop process improvements to achieve cost effectiveness and time saving (5%). 
o Set goals to each team member to provide at least 1 Process Improvement which can 
save time and cost. 
o Review the PIPs provided and team members and coordinate with higher Management 
to implement the same. 
o Provide Process improvements to achieve cost effectiveness and time saving. 
5 
Matter of S-E-S-, Inc. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary worked in a managerial capacity abroad; that he 
exercised control over the day-to-day activities of his team members who were located in India and 
the United States; and that he had authority to hire, fire, and recommend other personnel actions. 
Like the Director, we find that the Beneficiary's job duties are not consistent with those typically 
performed by someone in a managerial position. The job description focuses mainly on the 
Beneficiary's interaction with customers, but says little about how those interactions qualify as 
managerial. He spends 45% of his time participating in business meetings and solutions presentations 
with customers; handling customer and managerial reporting; and serving as the primary contact for 
customer inquiries, concerns and escalations. However, the task of taking part in business meetings 
and solutions presentations with customers does not describe the meetings or the Beneficiary's role in 
them or how that is a managerial duty. The task of handling customer and management reporting does 
not describe the reporting or indicate how it is a managerial task. Specifics are clearly an important 
indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise 
meeting the definitions would simply be a matter ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. 
v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Further, it appears that the position is not managerial because the Beneficiary primarily performs the 
tasks necessary to provide services to its customers. The Petitioner provides enterprise applications 
solutions to its customers. An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a 
product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity. See, e.g., sections 101 (a)( 44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" 
perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N 
Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). For example, the Beneficiary spends 25% of his time reviewing 
customers' statements of work, project plans, and project deliveries; setting delivery priorities; and 
making schedule adjustments to meet timely delivery goals. These duties are not managerial, but 
instead reflect the operational functions of the Petitioner's business. For example, preparing technical 
templates; providing customer support regarding technical requirements and deployments; gathering 
and reviewing statements of work from customers on technical issues; keeping track of deliverables; 
and monitoring, reviewing, and setting delivery priorities are operational duties related to the 
Petitioner's provision of technical services, not managerial duties. 
Additionally, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary performs tasks related 
to company systems, including troubleshooting technical issues; that he is the point person for 
technical issues that arise within the team; that he evaluates company platforms and networks and 
search for ways to improve them; and that he addresses faults within company systems and ensures 
those faults are corrected. These duties indicate that the Beneficiary is providing technical support 
rather than serving in a managerial position. 
Further, the job description states that the Beneficiary develops process improvements to achieve cost 
effectiveness and time saving, including setting goals and implementing PIPs with upper management. 
However, it does provide examples of the goals, PIPs, or process improvements or explain how upper 
management is involved in the process. In the RFE, the Director requested an organizational chart 
6 
Matter of S-E-S-, Inc. 
showing the foreign entity's organizational structure and staffing levels, but it did not provide one. 5 
As the record does not contain an organizational chart identifying the company's "upper 
management," the Beneficiary's role in the PIP process cannot be determined. While it is clear that 
the Petitioner had several clients in the United States, the Beneficiary's role in the overall organization, 
both in India and the United States, is unclear. 
Moreover, although the Beneficiary's job description indicates that the Beneficiary exercises some 
discretion over day-to-day operations of the "delivery team," the record does not demonstrate that the 
lower level personnel relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying day-to-day operational 
duties. At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary managed seven professionals, 
based both in India and the United States. They included a senior consultant in the United States, a 
consultant in the United States, two consultants in India, and three trainee developers in India. In 
response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that it "purposefully" reduced that number from seven to 
four "at the time of filing," but it does not indicate whether anyone in India or the United States took 
over the duties of the departed employees. 6 As noted above, the Beneficiary's position includes many 
technical duties, and the Beneficiary's seven subordinates also had primarily technical duties. Even 
with seven subordinates handling technical issues, the Beneficiary still appears to have primarily 
provided substantial technical support. The record therefore does not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's duties were "primarily" managerial in nature. Sections 10l(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the 
Act. 
Based on the foregoing, the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged 
in managerial duties abroad. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See sections 10l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to 
primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
The statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial 
capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional." Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(B)(4). If a petitioner claims 
that a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, those subordinate employees must be 
supervisory, professional, or managerial, and the beneficiary must have the authority to hire and fire 
those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. Sections 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii)-(iii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2)-(3). 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the 
work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" 
5 Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(6)(14). 
6 The new chart submitted in response to the RFE shows that the Beneficiary managed two U.S.-based employees, a senior 
consultant and a consultant. It shows that the U.S.-based senior consultant oversees a consultant in India, and that the U.S. 
based consultant oversees a trainee developer in India. The same chart is provided on appeal. In the description of their 
duties, the four employees have solely technical duties and do not appear to have any managerial duties. 
7 
Matter of S-E-S-, Inc. 
within the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a 
beneficiary managed an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties performed in managing 
the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that: 
(1) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is "essential," i.e., core to 
the organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the 
function; ( 4) the beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and ( 5) the beneficiary will exercise discretion 
over the function's day-to-day operations. 
Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
As previously indicated, the initial organizational chart submitted with the petition shows that the 
Beneficiary had seven subordinate employees, and a Director oversaw the Beneficiary. In the RFE, 
the Director stated that Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence confirming the employment of 
subordinate employees, that their positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry, or 
evidence that they will relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying tasks. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's global teams were purposefully 
reduced to four from seven at the time of filing and that upon his arrival in the United States, he would 
assemble new global teams. The Petitioner indicated in response to the RFE that the four "resources" 
currently managed by the Beneficiary included one senior consultant, two consultants, and a trainee 
developer. It provides evidence of employment of one of the consultants and the trainee developer by 
the Petitioner, and the other consultant and senior consultant by the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
It also provides evidence of their degrees and lists their duties. To establish that the subordinate 
positions are professional positions requiring bachelor's degrees, it stated that each employee 
employed in a similar position has, at a minimum, a bachelor's degree or its equivalent. 
In the denial decision, the Director found that other than its support letter, the Petitioner did not provide 
corroborating documentary evidence to suggest that the Beneficiary supervises and controls the work 
of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Beneficiary managed seven "professional resources" who each had a bachelor's degree, and that the 
Beneficiary served as a function manager. 
Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary will be employed either as a personnel 
manager or a function manager. Although a beneficiary is not required to supervise personnel, if a 
petitioner claims that a beneficiary's duties involve supervising employees, then a petitioner must 
establish that the subordinate employees are supervisory, professional, or managerial. See section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
The Petitioner asserts that the subordinate positions are professional because the Petitioner normally 
requires a degree or its equivalent for the positions. In evaluating whether a beneficiary manages 
professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate 
degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) ( defining 
"profession" to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent 
8 
Matter of S-E-S-, Inc. 
is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, states that 
"[t]he term profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, 
surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
Therefore, we must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree 
held by subordinate employee. While the record contains copies of the subordinates' degrees, the 
possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not automatically lead to the 
conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional capacity. Here, the Petitioner has not 
provided credible evidence establishing that a bachelor's degree is actually necessary to perform the 
duties of the positions of senior consultant, consultant, or trainee developer. For example, the 
Beneficiary served as a senior consultant, but he has a diploma that has not been established to be 
equivalent to a bachelor's degree. The Petitioner has also not shown that the Beneficiary's 
subordinates can be classified as managers or supervisors. Thus, the Petitioner has not shown that the 
Beneficiary's subordinate employees are supervisory, professional, or managerial, as required by 
section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
Further, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary has authority over personnel actions. 
Although the job description states that he evaluates the performance of team members, the duties of 
the Director who oversees the Beneficiary are not listed. Thus, the Director's authority over the 
Beneficiary and his subordinates, including personnel actions, is not clear. Further, the record contains 
no evidence of evaluations or other personnel actions performed by the Beneficiary. A petitioner's 
unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its burden 
of proof The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
Additionally, it appears that the Beneficiary is one of over 20 technical managers in the organization. 
The Beneficiary's performance ratings indicate "Employee Distribution by Grades." His 2018 rating 
states that he was employed as a technical manager (grade TS), and that there were 23 other employees 
employed at the same grade. His 2017 rating shows that he was employed as a lead consultant (grade 
TS) and that there were 21 other employees employed at the same grade. The record does not contain 
a chart detailing the organizational structure of the employees serving outside of the Beneficiary's 
team. Instead, it contains a listing of 80 employees' names, the education they received, and their 
titles, including 24 lead consultants, 26 senior consultants, 28 consultants, and one developer. With 
so many individuals in the purportedly managerial roles of lead consultant and senior consultant, and 
without an overall organizational chart, it is not clear how their duties related to personnel actions are 
divided across the organization. The record also contains employment tax records for the U.S.-based 
employees for 2016 to 2018, but these documents do not show the organizational structure of the 
company or demonstrate that the Beneficiary has authority over personnel actions. 
Finally, the initial organizational chart showed that the Beneficiary oversaw two U.S.-based 
employees - a senior consultant and a consultant. The chart showed that the U.S.-based senior 
consultant oversaw two consultants and a trainee developer in India; the U.S. consultant oversaw a 
trainee developed in India; and that trainee developer oversaw another trainee developed in India. 
However, the job duties of senior consultant and consultant do not mention any personnel oversight. 
The job description of the trainee developers state that they "work under close guidance provided by 
9 
Matter of S-E-S-, Inc. 
a supervisor," but it does not identify the supervisors. The Petitioner did not provide credible evidence 
to show how the Beneficiary supervised and controlled the work of subordinates employed by the 
Petitioner in the United States, or how his subordinates supervised the work of trainee developers in 
India. In light of the deficiencies described above, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary will be employed as a personnel manager. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary served as a function manager abroad. Here, 
the Petitioner has not sufficiently described the function to show that it is "a clearly defined activity." 
Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05. Instead, it broadly states that the Beneficiary was 
"focused on customer engagement" without adequately describing a specific function or component 
of the organization that the Beneficiary managed. In the absence of the requested company 
organizational chart, it is not clear where the Beneficiary and his team fit in the company as a whole. 
Further, whether a beneficiary is an "activity" or "function" manager turns in part on whether the 
Petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that the duties of that beneficiary are "primarily" 
managerial. See Matter ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). As discussed 
above, the Petitioner has provided a deficient job description that neither defines an essential function, 
nor conveys an understanding of how the Beneficiary managed the function. The deficient job 
description, coupled with a lack of understanding of how the Beneficiary's team fits into the overall 
hierarchy of the company, also precludes us from finding that the Beneficiary served as a function 
manager. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity 
abroad. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
In its initial submission, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary is being transferred to the United 
States as part of a "global strategic reintegration program" with requires the Beneficiary to manage 
his projects and teams in the United States. The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish 
that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's position in the United States is identical to his 
position abroad and that because his position abroad is managerial, his position in the United States 
would be managerial. As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was 
employed in a managerial capacity abroad. Because the Beneficiary's job duties and the nature of the 
Petitioner's business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure will remain the same, we agree 
with the Director that the Beneficiary would not be employed in the United States in a managerial 
capacity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. A petitioner bears the burden of proving eligibility for a requested 
benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner here has not met that burden. 
10 
Matter of S-E-S-, Inc. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of S-E-S-, Inc., ID# 5462842 (AAO Aug. 20, 2019) 
11